Welcome!

Welcome to the Resource Hub on effective peer review practices for the college classroom.

Peer review is the act of giving and receiving feedback on one’s writing. This webpage is focused on providing faculty with helpful and do-able tools to effectively build peer review into your courses. Here, you’ll discover multiple strategies and hands-on activities to enrich your teaching approach.

Peer review isn’t just an academic exercise, but rather an essential skill for students’ professional development and future careers. By practicing peer review, students learn to give and receive constructive feedback – skills vital in both college and the workplace. By offering peer review practice opportunities in class, faculty support students in their learning and growth as writers.

Click on each section below for a variety of resources to support you in coaching students to make the most of peer review in strengthening their writing. Browse these resources for a series of practical methods for organizing, executing, and evaluating peer review activities in your courses, with the ultimate aim to help students bolster their writing skills.

• Championing Peer Review

  Peer review is an essential skill in college and the workplace. 

  Research supports that peer feedback is an effective way to enhance students’ writing (e.g., Cho and MacArthur, 2011; Huisman et al., 2019; Hoo, Deneen, and Boud, 2022; Law and Baer, 2020; Patchan and Schunn, 2015). In particular, peer feedback can help students develop a number of skills that are important for their college and career development, such as: 

  • Strengthen students’ ability to recognize strengths and weaknesses in their own and others’ writing; 
  • Improve ability to give, receive, and constructively use feedback; 
  • Use feedback and self-evaluation of one’s writing to re-envision and strengthen work;  and 
  • Develop writing, critical thinking, and interpersonal communication skills. 

  
  

  In addition to the benefits students GAIN from feedback, the ability to GIVE feedback is also important. This advantage is known as “Giver’s Gain” (Cho and MacArthur, 2011;Van Popta et. al, 2017; Patchan and Schunn, 2015). As students read and provide feedback to other writers, they grow in their own writing skills. 

  Through writing, feedback, and revision assignments across courses, we provide students the opportunity to practice what workplace professionals do on a day-to-day basis: 

  1. give and receive feedback to/from colleagues, 
  2. integrate the most helpful feedback and build on it, and 
  3. revise to strengthen writing. 

  
  

  This Resource Hub provides multiple, hands-on approaches to assist faculty in your efforts to plan, implement, and assess peer review in your classes and, in turn, support your students in strengthening their writing. 

  References 

  Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73. https://ezproxy.shsu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edspdh&AN=2011-01104-001&site=eds-live&scope=site 

  Huisman, B., Saab, N., Van Den Broek, P., & Van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: a Meta-Analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863-880. https://ezproxy.shsu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbl&AN=vdc.100078303855.0x000001&site=eds-live&scope=site 

  Hoo, H. T., Deneen, C., & Boud, D. (2022). Developing student feedback literacy through self and peer assessment interventions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(3), 444-457. https://ezproxy.shsu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbl&AN=vdc.100146925107.0x000001&site=eds-live&scope=site 

  Law, S., & Baer, A. (2020). Using technology and structured peer reviews to enhance students’ writing. Active Learning in Higher Education, 21(1), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417740994

  Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: how students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science, 43, 591-614. https://ezproxy.shsu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.43575308&site=eds-live&scope=site 

  Van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R. L., & Simons, P. R. J. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20, 24-34. https://ezproxy.shsu.edu/login?url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X16300562 

• Planning for Meaningful Peer Review in Your Courses

  Four Steps to Build Peer Review into Your Courses

  Below are four teaching and learning practices to help faculty effectively incorporate peer review into your courses.

  • Set Peer Review Expectations
    • Discuss with students the importance of peer review in college and the workplace.
    • Highlight that the purpose of peer review is to help writers communicate more effectively.

    Professionals know they need the input of others to make their writing better. Students, too, need to embrace and practice this behavior and recognize that writing is not merely a solitary effort, but is enhanced through feedback and collaboration with others.

    In setting peer review expectations in your courses, here are some discussion points and questions you could consider.

    Discuss with students the importance of peer review in college and the workplace.

    • Show examples of sub-par writing in your discipline, and facilitate discussion on ways the writing had/could have negative consequences. Check journals, trade publications, and practitioner case studies in your field for samples you could share.
      • Ask your students to read the sample and identify some of the writing problems. Guide the students to look specifically for problems such as inaccuracies, tone issues, or misleading verbiage, rather than just grammar and mechanics.
      • Invite your students to discuss the negative consequences of these specific writing problems.
    • Discuss additional negative consequences of poor writing. Your students will be able to generate lots of ideas. You could also share some high profile negative consequences of poor writing in the news.
    • Discuss ways the writing mistakes could have been prevented. (Hint: Peer review!)

    
    

    Highlight that the purpose of peer review is to help writers communicate more effectively.

    • Show examples of “before feedback” and “after feedback” writing in your discipline to illustrate how the writing got stronger based on feedback. For inspiration, you could share with your students your own feedback from professional writing situations or journal revise and resubmit.
    • Discuss how you responded to the feedback and ultimately how the feedback was supportive to your purpose.
    • Ask students to share examples of a time when their own writing difficulties were helped by getting some form of feedback (from school, college applications, workplace activities, etc.).
  • Set Process and Criteria for Peer Review
    • Determine peer review process.
      • For example, will students trade papers? Use online software? How many papers will each student review? How much class and out-of-class time to dedicate?
    • Set the evaluation criteria students will use in reviewing each other’s writing.
      • Link the criteria to the learning objectives for the assignment.
      • Faculty can set the criteria and/or engage your students in the process of setting the criteria.

    What classroom processes will help to facilitate peer review in your course? For example:

    • Number of Papers. How many writing pieces will each student review? What is the size and scope of each writing artifact?
    • Group Size. Determine the size of each peer group, such as pairs, small groups of 3-4, or rotating groups in which students rotate through multiple partners or groups and provide feedback to a number of peers. A rotating process enables students to give/receive feedback to/from a variety of peers.
    • Peer Review Method. Determine the peer review method, such as face-to-face vs. online, free-form or structured, single-round or multi-round. In the latter context, students can provide feedback across progressive rounds of review and make revisions based on feedback from each round. An iterative approach can help foster continuous writing improvement.
    • Class Time. How much class time, across how many class sessions, to allot? What scaffolding is necessary to set up your students for a positive peer review experience?

    
    

    Below are some considerations for setting criteria for your students’ peer review activities.

    • Alignment with Learning Objectives. Identify the learning objectives guiding the peer review exercise and highlight how they correspond to the specific assignment. What course questions, concepts, and or themes will students explore during the activity?
    • Make sure the criteria are specific, providing clear guidelines for what students should evaluate in their peers’ writing.
    • Opportunities for Growth. Include criteria that encourage constructive feedback and opportunities for students to identify areas for improvement in their classmates’ writing.
    • Student Voice. Consider facilitating a class session in which you engage students in the process of setting the criteria.
  • Coach Students to Provide Meaningful Feedback Comments to Their Peers
    • Emphasize that meaningful peer review goes far beyond “good job” and is much more in-depth than proofreading for grammar and mechanics.
    • Model characteristics of helpful commenting, with samples.
    • Provide prompts to help students develop meaningful comments.

    Coach Students to Provide Meaningful and Helpful Comments

    Coaching students to write meaningful comments can be challenging, since some students may err toward the easy comment of “good job” and/or be hesitant to critique the work of their peers. In coaching students to comment effectively, provide them with specific strategies to provide helpful feedback. Below are some pointers to consider incorporating into your lesson.

    • Focus on the Positive. Encourage students to begin their feedback with one or more positive comments about specific things they found effective in their classmate’s writing. A positive start, focusing on strengths, helps to set a supportive tone and balance constructive criticism.
    • Be Specific. Emphasize that meaningful peer review goes far beyond “good job” and is much more in-depth than proofreading for grammar, format, or word count. Coach students to provide specific evidence and/or examples to support their comments.
    • Highlight Areas for Improvement. Guide students to identify areas where their peers’ writing could be strengthened or clarified. Model for them ways to provide specific suggestions for improvement rather than simply pointing our weaknesses.
    • Read from the Audience’s Perspective. Remind students to read the writing from the audience’s perspective and to provide feedback from that perspective.
    • Be constructive and growth-oriented. Coach students to use a feedback tone that is respectful. Remind them to focus on the writing (not the writer) and to frame comments in a way that encourages revision and improvement.
    • Ask Questions. Coach students to ask questions to clarify any aspects of the writing that they find unclear, confusing, or in need of details and/or evidence.
    • Practice Makes Perfect. Provide multiple opportunities for students to give and receive feedback, and provide opportunities for students to get feedback on their feedback.

    
    

    Model Characteristics of Helpful Commenting, with Samples

    • Facilitate a class discussion asking students to write and then share examples of helpful comments. Do the same for less-than-helpful comments. The “think-pair-share” approach could work well for this discussion.
    • Discuss characteristics of the helpful and less-than-helpful comments.

    
    

    Provide Prompts to Help Students Develop Meaningful Comments

    Consider providing a series of prompts to your students, such as questions and/or fill-in-the-blank style prompts, to demonstrate ways to write specific, helpful comments. Below are some examples.

    • I found ______________ to be unclear or confusing. To improve clarify, the writer could _______________.
    • I believe _______________ could be strengthened with more details or examples, such as _______________.
    • I noticed that _______________ could benefit from additional research or citation of sources, such as _______________.
    • I encountered difficulty with _______________ in the writing. To enhance cohesion, the writer might consider _______________.
  • Coach Students to Use Feedback Wisely
    • Practice selecting the most helpful feedback.
    • Model ways to build the feedback into an active revision plan.
    • Emphasize that using feedback is about strengthening the communication, not just “checking a box” to respond to a comment(s).

    Remind students that reviewing and critically thinking about feedback is an active form of reflection. In this step, students need to discern among the comments, select the comments that are most helpful, build upon those comments with their own ideas, and build a revision plan to strengthen the writing.

    • Practice selecting the most helpful feedback. Create a list of helpful and less-than-helpful comments. Have students rate the helpfulness of the comments. Facilitate discussion on why students rated the comments the way they did.
    • Model ways to build the feedback into an active revision plan. Show students a sample revision plan and walk them through it. Depending on time available, the revision plan can be something you identify in advance, or something you co-create with your students.
    • Emphasize the value of feedback for improving writing quality. Emphasize that using feedback is about strengthening the quality of the communication, making sure that it meets the needs of the audience, not just “checking a box” to respond to a comment(s) from peers or the instructor.
• Facilitating Peer Review

  When it comes to designing peer review for your course, there are many forms peer review can take! You will want to consider your course modality, your students’ learning needs, and availability of technology when deciding how you want to implement peer review in your class.

  ---

  IN-CLASS PEER REVIEW

  

  For classes that meet face-to-face, instructors can choose to have students complete peer review during class time. To do so, instructors should plan ahead, establish clear due dates, specify how drafts should be supplied to peers (printed out, exchange laptops, etc.), and come to class with specific, written instructions for the peer review. It is not enough to instruct students to swap papers and tell each other what they think!

  Some instructors fear that conducting peer review during class is a waste of class time. However, setting aside class sessions for peer review reinforces students’ understanding that writing is a valuable aspect of the course and underscores the belief that writing is a process. More importantly, in-class peer review elevates the presence of writing and is a pillar of high-impact practices (HIPs) in higher education.

  Pros:

  • Students receive immediate feedback
  • Instructors can provide real-time support when needed
  • More readily fosters relationships between students as writers & readers than other peer review modalities

  
  Cons:

  • Time is limited to class period
  • Students may feel rushed to complete on time or to “get done early”
  • Students may fail to use time wisely or get off task

  
  Other Considerations:

  • Instructors should begin with accessibility in mind. Students with an accommodation for additional testing time would likewise benefit from increased completion time of peer review. If students are swapping drafts on paper or devices, these may pose access challenges.
  • Sharing writing can be an anxiety-inducing experience for students. Instructor should have a plan for pairing students or formulating groups and supporting dialogue among students.
  • Students will come to class unprepared, so instructors should have contingency plans for students who come to class without a draft to share.

  ---

  ELI REVIEW

  

  Currently, SHSU faculty can access an institutional subscription to Eli Review, a platform designed to facilitate digital peer review. Eli Review is easily integrated into your Blackboard course (via the Content Market feature), and allows for flexible design, including anonymous peer review, a variety of peer review question types, and the ability to have students create their own revision plans based on the feedback they receive. Instructors will want to plan ahead when considering using Eli Review in their courses, partly because setting up the review and/or revision tasks will take time, especially if you are unfamiliar with the platform.

  Because we currently have an institutional subscription, Eli Review will not cost your students anything, but if institutional support is no longer available, instructors can consider adding a semester-long subscription to Eli Review as a requirement with their textbook adoptions before the start of the semester.

  Pros:

  • No additional cost to your students! (SHSU pays for an institutional subscription)
  • Integrates easily in Blackboard through Content Market
  • Students can work at their own pace
  • Options for anonymous peer review
  • Library of possible focused review tasks
  • Instructs students to make a revision plan to integrate appropriate review suggestions
  • Faculty can easily monitor students’ progress and review feedback given

  
  Cons:

  • Does not sync with Blackboard gradebook or calendar
  • Students may lack rapport with their peer review partners and thus be hesitant to give or be receptive of critical feedback
  • Students may lack confidence in providing comments to their peers

  
  

  Other Considerations:
  The flexible design of Eli Review means it’s a great option for both online (synchronous and asynchronous) and face-to-face classes. Face-to-face classes can assign Eli Review peer review tasks as homework assignments or plan to conduct peer review during class time if the course is scheduled in a computer lab, or if students have access to laptops during class.

  Click here for an overview of key features in Eli Review that can help students strengthen their peer review skills.

  ---

  BLACKBOARD PEER REVIEW ASSIGNMENTS

  

  For instructors who want to be able to facilitate peer review electronically, either synchronously or asynchronously, creating peer review within an existing Blackboard course may be the best option. Blackboard Ultra assignments have a review function available. Unlike Eli Review (discussed above), this digital option will not require students to leave Blackboard, creating a more streamlined peer review experience.

  Pros:

  • Fully integrated with Blackboard gradebook, groups, and other course tools
  • Students do not need to click out of the LMS — promoting organization and ease of use

  
  Cons:

  • Cannot manually create peer review groups
  • Anonymous peer review is not currently available
  • Students may feel less connected to their partners

  
  Other Considerations:

  • The flexible design of Blackboard means it’s a great option for both online (synchronous and asynchronous) and face-to-face classes. Face-to-face classes can assign Blackboard peer review tasks as homework assignments or plan to conduct peer review during class time if scheduled in a computer lab.
  • You can experiment with review assignments in a Blackboard sandbox course or reach out to your Instructional Designer with SHSU Online to test these assignments.

  ---

  FILE EXCHANGE (MICROSOFT TEAMS, GOOGLE/ONE DRIVE, EMAIL)

  

  File exchange is a low maintenance option for digital peer reviews intended to be completed asynchronously. While the lack of structure can be beneficial for instructors, caution should be taken when using this option, as it places a great deal of responsibility on students and could result in student anxiety and confusing, and thus a flood of email requests for support if the instructors are not carefully laid out ahead of time.

  Pros:

  • Fully integrated with Blackboard gradebook, groups, and other course tools
  • Students do not need to click out of the LMS — promoting organization and ease of use

  
  Cons:

  • Cannot manually create peer review groups
  • Anonymous peer review is not currently available
  • Students may feel less connected to their partners

  
  Other Considerations:

  • Peer review via file exchange can be easily adapted to what works best for your class. If you have a Teams page set up or have created groups in Blackboard, file sharing can be easily enabled and set up. Additional file sharing platforms such as One Drive are available for free and work across platforms.
  • Because of the high levels of autonomy and lower levels of instructor monitoring, file exchange may be more appropriate for upper-level undergraduate and graduate courses.
• Assessing Peer Review

  After identifying the learning outcomes for peer review in your classroom and assigning activities that promote peer review, it is important to determine ways to assess learners’ performance and ask them to reflect on their learning. These tasks will help integrate the benefits of peer review more clearly for students, so that they will understand this is not busy work.

  Peer review can be assessed in multiple ways, so students can numerically understand the goals of each task translated into a grade. Instructors can decide to evaluate learners from a broad or narrow approach, and also isolate specific elements to evaluate in each task.

  Below are a series of suggestions for faculty to incorporate into your peer review assessment practices. Each option is adaptable and transferable regardless of the platform and tools instructors can use with their learners. Some of the categories that can be evaluated throughout peer review practices include: 1) Task Completion and Engagement and 2) Quality of Writing Production (some of the items can be applied in multiple categories).

  Task Completion and Engagement

  1. Task Completion on Time
  2. Task Completion
  3. Word count in each essay
  4. Comment Ratio
  5. Comments Given
  6. Comments Received
  7. Comment Ratings (given and received)
  8. Comment Endorsement
  9. Suggestion Applicability (on corrections)

  
  

  Quality of Production

  1. Types of words included in each essay
  2. Quality of textual argumentation
  3. Inclusion of elements learned in class
  4. Textual structuring (introduction, body, conclusion)
  5. Incorporation of proper citation and reference styles (APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard)
  6. Quality of comments

  
  

  Please see an example of a grade calculation here.

We hope you find these resources helpful.

-SHSU Faculty Work Team on Effective Peer Review Practices